EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign To Smash EDO & Ors [2005] EWHC 837 (QB) (29 April 2005)

EDO MBM Technology Ltd v Campaign To Smash EDO & Ors [2005] EWHC 837 (QB) (29 April 2005)

The court held that interim injunctive relief could be granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to protect individuals from harassment arising from protest activity, provided the claimants satisfied an enhanced test requiring a probability of success at trial. The court found that EDO, as a company, could not claim under the Act, but Mr. Jones could represent employees and others under CPR 19.6. The claims against Smash EDO and BOOB were struck out as unincorporated associations cannot be sued without representative individuals before the court. The evidence established a sufficient risk of future harassment to justify interim relief against the individual defendants, subject...

Citation
[2005] EWHC 837
Parties
Claimant: EDO MBM Technology Ltd; Defendant: Campaign to Smash EDO & Others; Advocate for 3rd, 4th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th and 15th Defendants: Ms. Stephanie Harrison; Advocate for 12th Defendant: Mr. Alistair Mitchell; 6th Defendant (in Person): Mr. Osmond
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunction Application and Strike Out Applications / Interim (pre Trial)
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in part; claims against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out; Mr. Jones permitted to represent employees and others; EDO remains as a party but cannot claim under the Act.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunctions, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Assembly, Representative Actions, Unincorporated Associations
Civil Procedure Human Rights Tort Interim Injunctions Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Freedom of Expression Freedom of Assembly Representative Actions +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EDO MBM Technology Ltd

Claimant

Campaign to Smash EDO & Others

Defendant

Ms. Stephanie Harrison

Advocate for 3rd, 4th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 14th and 15th Defendants

Mr. Alistair Mitchell

Advocate for 12th Defendant

Mr. Osmond

6th Defendant (in Person)

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunction Application and Strike Out Applications / Interim (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 against protestors
  2. 2 Whether the claim is properly brought against unincorporated associations (Smash EDO and BOOB)
  3. 3 Whether Mr. Jones can represent employees and others under CPR 19.6

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that interim injunctive relief could be granted under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to protect individuals from harassment arising from protest activity, provided the claimants satisfied an enhanced test requiring a probability of success at trial. The court found that EDO, as a company, could not claim under the Act, but Mr. Jones could represent employees and others under CPR 19.6. The claims against Smash EDO and BOOB were struck out as unincorporated associations cannot be sued without representative individuals before the court. The evidence established a sufficient risk of future harassment to justify interim relief against the individual defendants, subject...

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in part; claims against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out; Mr. Jones permitted to represent employees and others; EDO remains as a party but cannot claim under the Act.

Orders

  • Interim injunction granted restraining harassment of protected persons under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, with specified terms and exceptions for lawful protest.
  • Proceedings against Smash EDO and BOOB struck out, with liberty to bring fresh proceedings if representative individuals are identified.